Every day Im thankful that there are two rival companies duking it out for a piece of the console market, with consoles that are both basically PC architecture designwise. Thank you Sony, thank you Microsoft. Thank you for breathing new life into the PC as better gaming platform.

Of course they're paying for PR, these are the people who tried to rig a twitter poll with the most obvious bots ever. Microsoft bought their way into the market, of course they're paying to stay relevant. That's what they do historically, bribe and bully.

Creston wrote on Oct 7, 2013, 01:35:Really? I read the whole thing and found none, basically. They talk around a whole bunch of stuff, and they'll say that you can't just look at Sony's raw extra power on paper, only to admit a few paragraphs later that, yeah, we'll just have to see how the games run (because they know full damn well the PS4 will run equivalent looking games faster), and that you shouldn't just base off specs but need to look at benchmarks, thereby ignoring that gamers have been looking at specs and benchmarks for umpteen years, and that the higher specced card beats the lower specced cards in benchmarks 99% of the time, and is simply a better card.

It seems pretty obvious that MS is paying people to go say nice things about news stories online. A lot of the responses to that Fitness App thing they announced last week were hilarious to read.

The term Killer App was used WAY to often by random strangers excited about the the fitness program they announced. (last week?) I mean what gamer willing to spend $500 on this thing wouldn't be jumping at and down with excitement because they could do their Insanity workout's for only $100 a year on Xbox One?!

Who the fuck is excited by paying $100 a year for Xbox Live even if it comes with Fucking fitness program!? NOT GAMERS.

Anonymous wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 23:56:OK, I read it. Maybe the Xbox One isn't the significant fail that it seemed to be. Apparently it has some advantages over the PS4.

Really? I read the whole thing and found none, basically. They talk around a whole bunch of stuff, and they'll say that you can't just look at Sony's raw extra power on paper, only to admit a few paragraphs later that, yeah, we'll just have to see how the games run (because they know full damn well the PS4 will run equivalent looking games faster), and that you shouldn't just base off specs but need to look at benchmarks, thereby ignoring that gamers have been looking at specs and benchmarks for umpteen years, and that the higher specced card beats the lower specced cards in benchmarks 99% of the time, and is simply a better card.

But hey, kudos to them for talking 8000 words to try to pretend that this isn't the case. They should go into politics.

Beamer wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 17:36:This isn't to say Microsoft didn't hope to do this and build for it,

Which is the entire point of the article. Microsoft DID build it for this. That you think nobody will use it, or at least that nobody will want to pay for it (which seems pretty unlikely anyway, as evidenced by Mehdi bleating these capabilities to the high heavens) has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft ABSOLUTELY designed the thing precisely for this very reason, their grandstanding by that asstard Penelo notwithstanding.

I could've interpreted your post wrong, but my take from it was that you thought MS didn't have Kinect-based ads and that if they took data from the Kinect that nobody would have the time or resources to examine the data or be able to draw conclusions from it. The Target article was included to support the idea that there are companies that might, as you put it

Do you guys really think SC Johnson has a team of mixed physicians and data analysts that can read this? Do you guys really think your pulse even rises that much during a 30 second ad? Or, if you think content creators want this, do you honestly think Paramount has any strong data analysts on staff with the kind of phd needed to go through this? Do you think they actually care?

I haven't paid much attention to the full capabilities of the Kinect, but I don't find it hard to believe that it's intended to be a part of the live advertising since MS is making a pretty penny over it. I don't know if it would yield any useful information, but I think there's people in advertising who would study the biometric data of people viewing different ads and ad campaigns.

Beamer wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 17:36:It's the same reason the current Kinect isn't used for advertising - no one wants to bother. Microsoft approached many companies, asking them to pay a few million to create a Kinect advertisement, or an entire Kinect-based Xbox Live grid. No one took them up on it.

I know many here disagree, but no one has thrown out a valid use for all this biometric data. Do you guys really think SC Johnson has a team of mixed physicians and data analysts that can read this? Do you guys really think your pulse even rises that much during a 30 second ad? Or, if you think content creators want this, do you honestly think Paramount has any strong data analysts on staff with the kind of phd needed to go through this? Do you think they actually care? Is this kind of data actually useful when creating a movie, or is it infinitely easier and cheaper to monitor and more useful to just pay attention to where Netflix users rewind and rewatch?

I'll just leave this article about Target analyzing shopping habits. To think biometric data could be useful for advertisers sounds plausible enough for me. There's probably firms out there willing to analyze the data for you if you don't have anything in-house.

None of that relates back, unless you are saying that they want to monitor biometrics not in reaction but just in general, and if you think they want to tie it back.

The Target article is pretty famous, and still doesn't tie to what people think will happen here, and it isn't relevant because it's Target using the buying habits they actually have coming in, not monitoring if someone's pulse changes when they put a Christmas ad on.

Beamer wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 17:36:It's the same reason the current Kinect isn't used for advertising - no one wants to bother. Microsoft approached many companies, asking them to pay a few million to create a Kinect advertisement, or an entire Kinect-based Xbox Live grid. No one took them up on it.

I know many here disagree, but no one has thrown out a valid use for all this biometric data. Do you guys really think SC Johnson has a team of mixed physicians and data analysts that can read this? Do you guys really think your pulse even rises that much during a 30 second ad? Or, if you think content creators want this, do you honestly think Paramount has any strong data analysts on staff with the kind of phd needed to go through this? Do you think they actually care? Is this kind of data actually useful when creating a movie, or is it infinitely easier and cheaper to monitor and more useful to just pay attention to where Netflix users rewind and rewatch?

I'll just leave this article about Target analyzing shopping habits. To think biometric data could be useful for advertisers sounds plausible enough for me. There's probably firms out there willing to analyze the data for you if you don't have anything in-house.

Thankfully, a source who would like to remain anonymous leaked the ad sales data from October 2011 to June 2012. Microsoft sells ads on the Xbox 360 Dashboard at a CPM of between $19 to $23, depending on the ad placement and the type of ad. You’ll pay an extra 20% for animated or video ads, and if you’d like to select specific demographics for those ads, you’ll pay an extra 15% per “targeting criteria,” with the maximum bump being 30%.

They already do targeted advertising. Using the Kinect to better refine that is a no-brainer.

I contacted Microsoft and asked how much advertising revenue impacted the profitability of the Xbox 360. “We don’t share this information publicly but we can tell you that, since 2010, the advertising business has grown 142%”

The Kinect might not be built around it, but sure-as-fuck they will shove as many ads as they possibly can, down your throat, while they make you pay to play online or watch Netflix, as they already do on 360. Very close to the top of reasons why I would not consider an XBone... bleh.

Creston wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 14:26:Bullshit. Kinect is built for nothing BUT advertising. You fuckers even had videos fucking cheering about how awesome it was to watch ads with Kinect, because then you could share them with your friends and other such utter retardery.

HA! I responded to that period of the sentence with BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIT~!

GTA issues: Everyone with issues - are you on the PS3? I have been flawless on xbox.

Likewise. It's been nearly flawless for me on 360.

I've also been leaving GTA Online by switching to Single player before I shut it down, ensuring that a save is made.

It seems like people are being impatient when the cloud servers are down and creating a new character in the same slot as their old one which overwrites the old one.

Level 36 with a launch day character and everything has been peachy other than a few connectivity issues on Day 1 and if I try to play before 7pm EST.

DangerDog wrote on Oct 6, 2013, 14:33:I can also imagine Ballmer went all over Hollywood to show off how they can do a head count and charge accordingly for pay-per-view movies and sporting events.

All that biometric data at their fingertips and they're not going to ply advertising with it? I suspect the 'Kinect' is optional to be complete B.S.

In order to watch this programming you need to plug in your Kinect device now.

Because no advertiser has the resources to analyze that data, the knowledge to know what to make of it, or the care to bother paying for it.

It's the same reason the current Kinect isn't used for advertising - no one wants to bother. Microsoft approached many companies, asking them to pay a few million to create a Kinect advertisement, or an entire Kinect-based Xbox Live grid. No one took them up on it. Why? Because Microsoft engineers can dream up all these moderately cool things, but no one actually wants them. No advertiser, and certainly no customer.

The only real use people have posited for how any of this could be useful is pausing whenever people look away from an ad, but no advertiser would ever, ever pay for that. Ever. Ads that piss people are what companies that can't afford anything else do (see: Head On.) Companies that Microsoft is courting aren't looking to alienate people, and they're well aware that most ads aren't paid attention to yet are still effective.

I know many here disagree, but no one has thrown out a valid use for all this biometric data. Do you guys really think SC Johnson has a team of mixed physicians and data analysts that can read this? Do you guys really think your pulse even rises that much during a 30 second ad? Or, if you think content creators want this, do you honestly think Paramount has any strong data analysts on staff with the kind of phd needed to go through this? Do you think they actually care? Is this kind of data actually useful when creating a movie, or is it infinitely easier and cheaper to monitor and more useful to just pay attention to where Netflix users rewind and rewatch?

This isn't to say Microsoft didn't hope to do this and build for it, but they've probably realized no one has any interest in paying them for it.